Very good thoughts on WELLFARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thegodfather]

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A$$, doing drugs, while I work. . .

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though something has to change in this country -- and soon!

[tankboy112]

im with u 100%

[Schmidty]

Yes!

[Ajc330]

amen

[Dangercat00]

Totally true...although you spelled welfare wrong.

[Pooks]

I completely disagree

The government needs to be a man about it, and slash welfare 20% across the board..

No urine test BS.. differentiating between people.

no offense but this seems like a sad attempt to keep welfare for yourself, but screw others out of it..

on the flip side how much have u profited from welfare yourself anyways?


Personally the only time I was on welfare was once on unemployment for 1 month between 2 jobs..

I could say screw Welfare.. I've paid a lot of money into it, and I don't get Sh*t out of it.

In our full employment economy all u really need is a month or two to find a new job..

that welfare program is pretty pointless anyways, only people who take advantage of it stay on unemployment for 6+ months.

I say NO to any drug tests or BS infrindgements on our privacy, like collecting DNA data and crap like that.

Instead the gov't just need to grow the balls and slash 20% across the board, or how ever much it takes to balance out the budget.

(with lower taxes not paying for these welfare systems, people would be able to save more money, or have more assets to sell for money if the need arises)

[batlin]

I agree 100%...
If you are on drugs... no check for you!!!

[number twelve]

i think that is a great idea

[Pooks]

Looking at the Social Security Tax...

lets say on average a person pays $7500 a year into social security..

so u work 50 years of your life... = $375,000

I dont know what the average person gets from social security, but I doubt he'll get that money back...

with inflation over the 50 years that will be worth maybe $100,000 by the time u retire. (and u'll only get a fraction of that, if the system even exists anymore by than)

on the flip side..
put that $375,000 into a private mutual fund retirement fund.
that collects on average 10% per year ..(off the top of my head i believe that would mean it woudl double every 10 years)

so.. quick math..that equal $1,200,000 in your personal account.

with inflation maybe thats worth $400,000 when u retire Guaranteed.. much better than $100,000 that u prolly won't even see that much from it.

[Panzerfaust]

Don't get me started in welfare but I kinda lean toward Pooks' idea on this subject.

[thegodfather]

The fact still remains although it is an invasion of your privacy, we all usually have to take drug tests when we get hired at MOST jobs. So I think in order for those same people who get the benefits of your money to use it, they should be held to the same standard. Plus we already know how many people use wellfare checks to buy crack... ALOT

[rockinred]

The fact still remains although it is an invasion of your privacy, we all usually have to take drug tests when we get hired at MOST jobs. So I think in order for those same people who get the benefits of your money to use it, they should be held to the same standard. Plus we already know how many people use wellfare checks to buy crack... ALOT

a couple things to consider also... is that not all that pay into the system have to take a preemployment drug screen. Also, another factor is that you take a test willingly because of the position your company, or entity, has taken on the subject. How far do they test for? what type of drugs? a standard pee test is about 35$... not too bad for government, but how does that get factored into the equations.... there are definatley more things to consider in this idea too.

[RuhlFreak55]

i think it's stupid that someone thinks they can make you pass a urine test to get a paycheck......but......i think that if we can't get rid of welfare sure implement that, cause if they've let drugs lead them there they don't deserve handouts

[Panzerfaust]

The fact still remains although it is an invasion of your privacy, we all usually have to take drug tests when we get hired at MOST jobs. So I think in order for those same people who get the benefits of your money to use it, they should be held to the same standard. Plus we already know how many people use wellfare checks to buy crack... ALOT

I see where you are coming from, we definately need to have a better system in place that can determin ones need for welfare. It's quite ****ing obvious whatever they are using now is broken.

[briancb1]

I don't believe you should get a check w/o a drug test. Invasion of privacy? Well when its taxpayer money and what the people representing the taxpayers say should go.

[Tock]

Looking at the Social Security Tax...

lets say on average a person pays $7500 a year into social security..

so u work 50 years of your life... = $375,000

I dont know what the average person gets from social security, but I doubt he'll get that money back...

with inflation over the 50 years that will be worth maybe $100,000 by the time u retire. (and u'll only get a fraction of that, if the system even exists anymore by than)

on the flip side..
put that $375,000 into a private mutual fund retirement fund.
that collects on average 10% per year ..(off the top of my head i believe that would mean it woudl double every 10 years)

so.. quick math..that equal $1,200,000 in your personal account.

with inflation maybe thats worth $400,000 when u retire Guaranteed.. much better than $100,000 that u prolly won't even see that much from it.

What about folks who are incapacitated (bike accident, brain tumor, birth defect, etc) and need help? Do away with Social Security, and they lose a lot (if not all) of what keeps them going. Do away with SS, and they could end up on the street, homeless, without medical assistance, and before long, cities across the US look like Bombay or Calcutta.

Social Security needs to be fixed, for sure. I don't know much about it, other than when the liberals back in the 1930's first proposed it, it was supposed to kick in only for the last few years of life. But people are living longer, getting more years of benefits, so IMHO, people should have to work longer (to age 75 instead of 65) before getting benefits.

Lots of premature babies are born every day, and if they cost anything like the one my secretary had ($2.5 million in medical costs), well, somebody's gonna have to make the hard decision what the gov't is gonna pay for, and what it won't. Same is true of old folks -- no sense in spending millions of $$$ to keep an old person going if they're not really gonna get healthy. Especially if that same amount of $$$ can be better used on younger patients.

Unpopular choices have to be made. People are gonna have to resign themselves to dying a bit sooner, rather than later, unless everyone is willing to pay substantially more in taxes to pay for "heroic" medical treatment.

JMHO . . .

[spywizard]

Looking at the Social Security Tax...

lets say on average a person pays $7500 a year into social security..

so u work 50 years of your life... = $375,000

I dont know what the average person gets from social security, but I doubt he'll get that money back...

with inflation over the 50 years that will be worth maybe $100,000 by the time u retire. (and u'll only get a fraction of that, if the system even exists anymore by than)

on the flip side..
put that $375,000 into a private mutual fund retirement fund.
that collects on average 10% per year ..(off the top of my head i believe that would mean it woudl double every 10 years)

so.. quick math..that equal $1,200,000 in your personal account.

with inflation maybe thats worth $400,000 when u retire Guaranteed.. much better than $100,000 that u prolly won't even see that much from it.

when President Roosevelt created social security with a retirement age of 62, the average life expectancy was 54.. there is a reason the money goes to the general fund and not into an account that is a savings account for you when your retire..

you were never meant to get that money back.. it's an employment tax

[IronReload04]

the idea that the urine test is an invasion of privacy is absolute ****ing horseshit....
1. if someone is in position to be getting a welfare check, its an insult, its crap, its abuse of system, and damn them to hell for using that money on drugs

2. if i have to take a urine test to get a job, like everyone is saying, people collecting my mother****ing money better be held to the same goddamn standard.



i think using this urine test, would tremendously disqualify alot of people.....which would put those people where they belong....hell


the idea that my mother****ing money is getting used to pay for some candy infuriates me......and this has all really struck a nerve with me

sorry for rant

[Panzerfaust]

What about folks who are incapacitated (bike accident, brain tumor, birth defect, etc) and need help? Do away with Social Security, and they lose a lot (if not all) of what keeps them going. Do away with SS, and they could end up on the street, homeless, without medical assistance, and before long, cities across the US look like Bombay or Calcutta.

Social Security needs to be fixed, for sure. I don't know much about it, other than when the liberals back in the 1930's first proposed it, it was supposed to kick in only for the last few years of life. But people are living longer, getting more years of benefits, so IMHO, people should have to work longer (to age 75 instead of 65) before getting benefits.

Lots of premature babies are born every day, and if they cost anything like the one my secretary had ($2.5 million in medical costs), well, somebody's gonna have to make the hard decision what the gov't is gonna pay for, and what it won't. Same is true of old folks -- no sense in spending millions of $$$ to keep an old person going if they're not really gonna get healthy. Especially if that same amount of $$$ can be better used on younger patients.

Unpopular choices have to be made. People are gonna have to resign themselves to dying a bit sooner, rather than later, unless everyone is willing to pay substantially more in taxes to pay for "heroic" medical treatment.

JMHO . . .

Just who in the hell are you to decide who lives and dies? WTF? You need to honestly do some reading before posting something so horrible.

"No sense in spending millions of dollars on an old person if they're not really gonna get healthy".

You failt o realise how the system works and how it is broken. Your comments easily show this to be true.

I urge you to look into the SS sysatem and how it is supposed to work and why it is broken. One economics class could teach you that.

So, here I am. I pay SS my whole life and when I retire i'm not entitled to my funds because i'm older and not going to get "healthy"?

Talk about sick and **** demented.


Ok, now go read up on this and come back and I bet you can make a better case on this subject.